90.5 WESA: Beset by financial troubles, the boards of Pittsburgh Public Theater and the Pittsburgh CLO are set to vote this month on whether to consolidate as a brand-new organization.
The new entity, as yet unnamed, would produce both the new and classic musicals CLO now stages and the new and classic plays currently mounted by the Public.
2 comments:
The creativity behind the people reporting on the merger cannot be understated. They’re finding very good ways to avoid saying “both theatres are flat broke.” As a huge theatre fan and creator it does give me a kind of false sense of security. There are pretty much no theatres around that are thriving financially without charging some exorbitant prices these days. Still, the merger itself is kind of cool–a larger department will not only lead to cool things creatively, but it will also help the theatres grow even more. I wonder if this merger will have any impact on the company’s season or internal workings–is it a complete merge, or will lines between the two former theatres still stand? And what would happen if the vote doesn’t go through? I find myself wondering what exactly the negatives are to the merge, as both theatres are suffering financially. Is it ideological differences/traditions of the individual theatres that would provide a reason not to vote?
That's a really funny way to say merger… or perhaps to say it would be temporary..? Actually, “the creation of ‘a true destination theater experience’ Downtown, one ‘that blends the strengths of both organizations’ to offer ‘theater for everyone — both long-time patrons as well as new audiences, with shows to interest all ages and outlooks.’ kinda gave me nothing. I think it is totally okay to say that both Public and the CLO don’t have much money, and this joining would be beneficial. Truthfully, I think it is much more productive to be honest about that actually. That sad truth about the financial struggles of the arts currently is vital information for the community. Otherwise, why would they join? After each organisation has had such a rich history, it is quite sad to see them both have to potentially give up their individual creativity over finances and not because they wanted to. This rephrase really seems like a way to avoid pity to the organisations, when in reality this course of action would look like the consolidation of so much rich theatrical community and creativity into something smaller. Additionally, I have heard many many times that Pittsburgh is often a place where people come and go, travel to and work in, but a place that not many reside for long. “Desination theater experience” sounds like more of an appeal to the people passing through the city than the ones actively living in it. That is very blatantly a need for money rather than anything that would better the local community. I hope that they can find a way to achieve their individual artistic goals, but I don’t have my heart set on it. I understand the potential need for this merger. Or should I say, “true destination theater experience.”
Post a Comment